Did the W Boson Just Break Physics? The Mass Anomaly
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июн 2024
- Signup for your FREE trial to Wondrium here: ow.ly/KOsz30siJJy
REFERENCES
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
profmattstrassler.com/2022/04...
CHAPTERS
0:00 What is the W Boson Anomaly?
1:30 What does the W boson do?
2:16 Electroweak theory prediction
6:40 What does new W boson mass result mean?
8:57 What could be causing the mass anomaly?
11:23 College level course on the Standard model
SUMMARY
In April 2022, a team at Fermilab announced that the W-boson was measured to a new level of 7 sigma precision- 80.4335 giga electron volts (GeV) plus or minus 0.0094 GeV. However, this was not what is predicted by the the standard model of particle physics, which is 80.357 plus or minus 0.006 GeV.
Although this is only a 0.1 GeV, or a 0.3% difference, it is a big deal because it is 7 sigma off the prediction. Anything over 5 sigma is considered a new discovery.
The W boson along with the Z-boson mediates the weak force, which is one of 3 fundamental forces described by the standard model. It’s a rather heavy particle being about 80 times the mass of the proton which has a mass of about 1 GeV. This boson is behind the decay of neutrons to protons, and protons to neutrons. This process is important for the stability of large atoms, and is essential to how the sun works.
The problem is that the Fermilab result is not compatible with the standard model, which is considered our best understanding of how the universe works, and which up until now has been very accurate in making predictions.
The electroweak theory unites two fundamental forces, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism. It tells us how these two forces arise from a single unified force, and it tells us how this force works. The Higgs field plays a critical role in making electroweak theory work, because it is responsible for giving mass to the bosons which carry the weak force. Those bosons are the W and Z bosons. The Higgs boson is an excitation in the Higgs field.
The weak force interacts with all the matter particles of the standard model. So any modification to the standard model based on new findings, would affect the parameters of electroweak theory. In fact if anything is wrong with the standard model, it will likely be found in the electroweak part of the standard model.
This theory specifies a relationship between the Z and W boson. The theory doesn’t exactly state what the mass of these particles should be, but it gives a relationship which must be respected. That relationship is that the ratio of the mass of the W bozon and Z boson is the cosine of the Weinberg angle. The new result appears to violate this prediction from electroweak theory.
When the W mass was initially calculated based on the standard model, the mass was too low. The issue is that the mass of all massive particles is affected by the mass of other particles. These are called quantum corrections.
So for example, the W boson is affected by quantum corrections from its interaction with other particles, like the top quark and the Higgs boson.
The reason that the mass of one particle affected by the mass of other particles is because at the quantum level, all particles are excitations in fields. This is the basis of quantum field theory. The magnitude of these excitations in the field is what we perceive as mass. And any given field affects other fields.
And over decades of W-boson mass measurements, they have all been within the standard model prediction after taking the error bar or uncertainty into account…until now. This new result has an unprecedented low combined uncertainty, so in this case the statistical uncertainties cannot make up for the deviation.
So, what does this mean? There are three possible explanations:
1. The math is wrong.
2. The experiment or analysis is flawed.
3. There is some new unknown physics that affects the mass.
Option 1 is unlikely. Option 2 is more likely. But if no one finds a mistake in the experiment, then option 3 will likely be correct. This would mean that there is some new physics that is missing from the standard model.
New measurements from CERN could help us determine whether the result is correct or wrong, depending on whether they recreate the same result.
#WBoson
#electroweaktheory
It's possible that the mass of the W boson is supposed to be heavier, but there is a problem with our understanding of the top quark, Higgs, or Z boson, since they also affect the mass of W. It could also be that there are some further quantum corrections such as from an unknown dark matter particle that we are not taking into account. 
Наука
Physicists are the only professionals who get hyped by being wrong about their entire life's work and I think we should all inspire ourselves from that perseverance.
I don't think they're all like that.. Especially when they're at the top. Humility only goes so far.
Academic physicists are probably the reason we have been stuck on the same problems so long. They refuse to believe that anything but string theory could even possibly be true. Go ahead try it and then you'll see. If you try to pursue literally anything but exactly what the schools want you to, your career will be dead faster than a squirrel crossing a highway. It's sad. They are absolutely not hyped about being wrong, and they are so audacious with their power that they actively discredit anything but their precious theories as "fringe physics". Good luck getting funding as well xD. The whole system is a fucking joke honestly and the only people that seem to be making any real progress at all these days are the ones who leave it all behind and go into privately funded research.
It's more like them getting excited about what they were taught (aka info submitted by someone else) was wrong. This gives them an opening to make their own discoveries, which could later also wind up being wrong (which will more than likely not "hype" the ones that made said discoveries, but just the other physicists that now have a chance to submit their own work).
@@extavwudda Most people who consider themselves skeptics aren't skeptics. Instead they are mostly anti-mainstream and want their own biased crackpot theories or religious beliefs to be true.
True, except Pilots and people that work in disarming explosive ordinances
This is an ASMR of indecipherable facts, hurled towards my unsuspecting brain.
Oh they're decipherable. Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure you're plenty intelligent enough to learn, understand, and appreciate particle physics, or any subject. You don't need to be a genius except to have a good idea how QFT works.
lmao 🙂🙂
Haha...Well, I'm glad to help the world rid itself of their insomnia.
@@ArvinAsh don't get me wrong. I love and very much appreciate your videos. But that evening I was particularly drowsy, and being tucked in a safe blanket of science was a very calming experience 🙂
The wise man attempts to teach us the arcane secrets, regardless of our capacity, or lack thereof.
Thanks for keeping us informed about this finding. It will be an interesting exercise to see how scientists use our current technology to understand the issue.
Wonderful vid!
Arvin's understanding of these complex issues is amazing.
Another amazingly clear explanation for us lay people, on a fairly complicated subject, without dumbing it down. Much appreciated.
Honestly one of my favorite things from your videos is that you'll admit there could be something we're missing. I never lose respect for a scientist as quickly as when I have to suffer through some dogmatic SOB who gets their feathers ruffled when anyone hints that there might be something they're missing.
Admitting something might not be complete or fully understood is the exact definition of science… It’s always trying to change its mind when better facts and information come along…. It’s been ridiculously rare the last few decades that’s it’s even been close to wrong though… This is pretty exciting stuff, evidence that something could be incomplete….
I don't know.. pretty much the only time I see physicists, as you say, getting their feathers ruffled over such hints are when the hints are just thinly veiled attempts to lend credibility to crack pot theories. It is rarely just any old hint, but specific ones that are part of pseudoscience from people upset that physics do not see their obvious greatness or want to listen to reasons their pet theory is bunk.
So you respect all physicists. One who would be dogmatic is just really bad at his job or lived before the 20th century.
@@arthurs5099 Ironically, often when I see posts with that kind of rhetoric, the only physists they DO respect are the dogmatic ones who can not take criticism because they are 'fighting academics!'
@@neeneko yes always! In France we have a lovely prick named idris aberkhane i think he s the champ. Just talking about dogmatism says long about your position.
great video as always!! thanks Arvin!!
Here thanks to Sabine! I'm looking over some of your more interesting looking videos, and have enjoyed what Ive seen, so far! It would be SO cool if it were a clue to new science! That's where new discoveries, new knowledge come from. That's always a good thing!
Thanks for these videos! 🖖🏼🙂👍🏼❤️❤️
Thanks so much, Arvin. So glad I found this channel.
Thank you so much for your posts Arvin. I’m not even joking it was so pleasant to just fall asleep to your videos on the couch last night and sort of doze in and out. I appreciate how calming and yet exciting and entertaining your videos are
Haha. Well, anything to help your insomnia! Thank you my friend.
Excellent video, as always. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.
Thanks Arvin, excellent work!
Such a great video! Stuff like this gets me so excited!
Great description, informative, exciting and interesting.
Thank you Arvin, another great video
Dr. Don Lincoln lectures? Yes please!
Also loved the video, I haven’t seen anyone explain it in the way of ratios!
Edit: Grammar
I'm always thankful that I get to live in the time of humanity that gets us closer to the truth of how the universe is built.
Arvin, how would a higher verified mass affect the total distribution of types of matter (dark matter, dark energy)?
It wouldn't affect the total visible matter mass, since the W particle is quite quickly converted to other particles in Weak interactions. An interesting consequence of this finding could be to help us identify the elusive dark matter particle, or at least hint at its existence.
The example proved opposite. And whatever truth is it doesn't change anything in your life. It means you get excited by irrelevant things LOL it's better to do something real with own time in real world before dying as everyone else...
@@ebrelus7687 There are lots of things in daily life now, from space travel, GPS, to computer chips, that were made possible by somebody first staring in wonder at the universe and saying "I want to know more." Besides, even if you're not an active researcher, what's wrong with taking a moment to appreciate the natural world?
@@ebrelus7687 it’s entirely possible you do not exist.
@@DFPercush Yes this!!!
Excellent presentation of a recently published result in Physics.
Great video, as always!
Either way we have a huge problem. If you look at the chart at 8:48 you will see that the Atlas result (CERN 2018) has no overlap with the more recent CDF II result. That means the very method of experiment, data collection and interpretation of that data from one of these two extremely expensive collider/detectors is defective.
It is okay to be imprecise when conducting physics experiments. It is another thing however to say that a result may not be completely accurate but we can at least provide the parameters (limits) of our inaccuracy with high confidence.
If Atlas is correct, then it shows there is a huge concern with the ability for CDF II to arrive at competent conclusions. If CDF II is correct, then it shows there is a huge concern with the ability for Atlas to arrive at competent conclusions.
Either way - someone has got some explaining to do.
Arvin explains in another comment (maybe he should have done in the video) that those results certainty is below 5-sigma, what is why they were not taken too seriously.
Why not both wrong?
The chart only shows one sigma, not 5 sigma, which is what is required. So all previous measurements have been "in range" of the theoretical value. The new one isn't, because its uncertainty is claimed to be so low. If the uncertainty was higher, then it would be inside the 5-sigma range, and nobody would have made any fuzz about it.
Very well made and easy to follow video
Thanks sir for this content
very well done. It's hard to explain why the theory is so involved, as is the experimental measurement.
I want to come and learn and work under you bro. I am so excited about science.
Very much enjoyed this video.
Love you sir 💓. Great contribution for creating love for physics,
Excellent explanation! Personal guessothesis: the Boson mass varies (isn't a fixed value), and it varies due to certain as of yet undiscovered environment factors that differ between the 2 colliders (CERN and and the American collider). So basically: new physics.
Interesting. Thanks.
What's more concerning is that some of the previous measurements don't line up with this new measurement. A systematic error is definitely possible.
yes indeed.
Of course it is, the idea that man can figure out the complexities of the universe with any degree of certainty is laughable, let alone predict things they haven’t yet figured out…
@@metaguru7898 yet
@@ArvinAsh 
Is there such thing as curvature uncertainty?
Ask Question
Asked 5 years, 7 months ago
Modified 5 years, 7 months ago
Viewed 478 times
6
2
I was trying to reason about how could quantum mechanics be related to the space-time curvature, and I have ended up in an apparent contradiction, which puzzles me. It would be nice if someone could point out if I am mistaken.
Let's say one wants to determine a distance, for instance, the position of a particle, with high precision. Then, according to the uncertainty principle, one has to sacrifice accuracy on how well the momentum of the particle can be known, so trying to resolve a distance more precisely involves an increase in momentum uncertainty. On the other hand, according to general relativity, the curvature of spacetime is related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter present, so, if curvature is dependent on momentum, increasing momentum uncertainty should lead to increasing "curvature uncertainty"
@@metaguru7898 wdym, we're literally meant to be the observers of the universe
I really enjoy your videos even though I only understand about 10% of what you're talking about. Maybe 15%. Hopefully over time it will start to make more sense.
Brilliantly explained.
Arvin Ash,
Thank you for another amazing, well thought out, carefully researched, and properly presented video. The presentation in this video not only presents a potentially groundbreaking result, it also lays bare the general scientific method used to discover that result, and how science discovers truth, and corrects accepted truth when new truth is discovered. It is the careful experiment, measurement, test, and observation process which enables discovery of accurate theories and models for how our universe actually works. This is called scientific method. I wish more people, especially religious and political devotees, would watch your videos so they can discover that there are scientific methods for discovering actual truth which are far superior to the ancient and outdated methods of religion and politics.
Well said
Thanks for your Phenomenal insights into the heart of hidden reality!!
First Moun g-2 and now this. Interesting times.
Out of all the physics channels I understand nothing about this is my favorite
Good presentation
THANK YOU DR.ARVIN ASH...!!!
Professor LINCOLN , A Great teacher ...I am a Great Courses student too...!!!
Wonderful!
Brilliant as usual. I think this is the first time I've heard a discussion about the standard model that mentioned the gaping holes of dark matter and dark energy in the current version.
You need to follow Sabine Hossenfelders channel. She has been talking about this for some time.
@@juliusdavies2005 Done. I love her delivery and the way she says Einstein. Thanks for the suggestion.
@@juliusdavies2005 Electric Universe model is what we should be looking at
Starting a physics degree later this year… pretty good time to get one. Broken standard model and fusion energy seem like there are gonna a be a fair few jobs about
The picture @2:24 summarizes the difference perfectly! Might as well put that at the very start of the video.
The error bars represent the variability of the data, one standard deviation or sigma. 7 sigma means 7 standard deviations.
Your enthusiasm for the subject is infectious! Many thanks. Dr Sabine Hossenfelder is dismissive of this new “discovery”.
Despite this video being right that standard model is a joke that brought no real new breakthroughs only more new variables in old equations instead of simplifying & merging theories.
Not dismissive - cautious. She's not wrong, imho.
@@ebrelus7687 Particle physics is hard and takes decades for new discoveries. The Higgs field was theorized in the 60's and took around 50 years before Higgs bosons were discovered, and that is not the end. There may be more Higgs fields which might have some bearing on the W boson mass. What's the point of all of this? Trying to discover how the universe works as you say yourself. It just may take hundreds more years!
Was thinking the same but my understanding is so little that they could be making all up and I wouldn't even notice but I guess at least got the gist of it which is nice..
@@tonywells6990 my concern is that focusing on this path which is path of unbelievable investments in adding new variables that don't really produce any new inventions in real lives of humanity while laughing out, ignoring or directly blocking other theories & approaches from being tested may by overly centralisation effect with damaging open scientific debate & wasting huge potential to make grand breakthrough by simply fixing old errors & misconceptions, without cosmic gear and massive facilities as it was in time of Einstein and Tesla. Because of forced consensus we miss such stormy debates as these two had. Nothing really impressive was invented since those two... Nothing on level of radio, AC. We may fool ourselves that easiest to discover things were already discovered and only complex stuff left but it's for me more like getting highjacked by cult of much weaker modern mind that became more a celebrities & bigdata noise computing interpreters than hard empirical world observers & truthseekers.
Thank you for point out that we can't completely rule out math and experimental mistakes.
One of the biggest problems of particle physics is that it is not always practical to reproduce experiments by a different team with a different particle accelerator, so it is wise to be careful before jumping to conclusions.
Cool channel.. subbed!!
It seems we are getting into new physics territory what that actually means not sure. I do believe we are in the just beginning stages of understanding physics. In fact I'd say we know less than we know which will be exciting for new physicist to try and figure out how and why things work. Great information and presentation as always.
Thank you Arvin Ash. More openings into our wonderful Universe.
Thanks Marvin
I have never understood the weak force or how it works. I understand gravity, electromagnetism and the strong force, but the weak force i never understood. People say its radiation but that doesnt help me understand how radiation is a force.
See this video I made for an explanation: ruclips.net/video/xZqID1zSm0k/видео.html
Check out the Electric Universe model and realize there is no such thing as weak or strong for just electromagnetic interactions between particles
@@breakingthewall2112 I dont care about unified theories i wanna know what constitutes the weak force in the classical sense.
It is only a matter of time before this or other discoveries start chipping away at the Standard Model. Just because a theory is good at predicting things in its domain doesn't mean it is correct. Just at look at Newton and Einstein. We need to have the Standard Model break, otherwise we simply aren't going to make any meaningful progress toward a unified field theory. I am subscribed to Fermilab as well and in their video they flatly say that they don't know what this means but it is quite exciting. This just proves in my mind that we need both good theories and good experiments and you can't have one without the other.
More variables not necessarily help getting closer to unify different theories. BTW we make no progress, some small group thinks they make progress, the rest never saw the original data nor calculated it themselves and have any expertise to confirm it as legit... So we only believe in some abstract progress that has no impact on our lives in reality where since death of Einstein & Tesla we do not see many new real inventions... We see recycling of all kinds of old ideas. I'm generalising but we do are stuck like sheep in narrow scope with only a few big fancy themes as AI, Big Data, Blockchain, Quantum equations, Genetic drugs. We still do not fly to job, can't desaltify sea water effectively, produce natural quality food without unnatural chemicals, pesticides on mass & environmentally neutral (for soil, animals & humans not for abstract climate that's ever changing), we still eat from unhealthy plastic, we still build stuff from fossil fuels without even 50% of healthy recycling rate & reuse, our biom, diet & fertility is degenerating every decade faster and faster. Who cares what happens on level of atoms if we can't even safely figure out how to keep our own health and live in sync with nature our mother not sacrificing industrial capacity which let us stop being farmers & afford not living in cities like rats in cages being stressed to death & chained to minimal material needs.
I don't think it's incorrect. It is just not complete.
@@ArvinAsh 
Is there such thing as curvature uncertainty?
Ask Question
I was trying to reason about how could quantum mechanics be related to the space-time curvature, and I have ended up in an apparent contradiction, which puzzles me. It would be nice if someone could point out if I am mistaken.
Let's say one wants to determine a distance, for instance, the position of a particle, with high precision. Then, according to the uncertainty principle, one has to sacrifice accuracy on how well the momentum of the particle can be known, so trying to resolve a distance more precisely involves an increase in momentum uncertainty. On the other hand, according to general relativity, the curvature of spacetime is related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter present, so, if curvature is dependent on momentum, increasing momentum uncertainty should lead to increasing "curvature uncertainty"
Man, you're awesome
This is a very interesting topic, and a very difficult to comprehend.
Thankyou for the good explanation, as always your videos to the topics.
The LHC, Fermi-Lab, and other, were built I guess, to crack atoms to their smaller parts, protons and electrons, and cracking deeper to its smallest parts, finding and understanding the functions and consistency of each particle and how they play a role in the universe and reality.
Would the complete mapping of all particles and the knowledge of their functions, be relevant for our perception of reality and what can we benefit out of that?
There may certainly be a missing variable in the math equation that would become very close to 1 or 0 (thereby cancelling themselves out) for the other particles, but very precisely predict the value of the W boson - possibly by some graviton interaction - if it were inserted into the equation
Arvin said that _"over decades of W-boson mass measurements, they have all been within the Standard Model prediction after taking the error bar or uncertainty into account ... until now."_
But look at the diagram at 6:43. In 4 out of 8 prior experiments, the calculated W-boson mass *_disagreed_* with the Standard Model prediction-even after taking uncertainty into account. 🤔
What am I missing?
Great question. Those prior measurements were not off by 5 sigma. Physicists generally do not consider it a new discovery until a measurement can meet that criteria.
@@ArvinAsh So the wrong answer in margin of error is right answer while a wrong number beyond error margin is not a truly wrong number but a new breakthrough... And then they adjust the model with new variables to bring back ratio of maybe mistaken numbers but with a we'll fitting & predictable pattern calling it a better model and getting rewards & fame for it?
That is actually a big over-sight, if you ask me:
The 'error margin' lightly falls within our predictions, so the actual number has to be the prediction.... /s
There is just as much possibility that the actual number is on the *other side* of the error margin, further away from the predicted number. It feels as someone should have asked, long before now, why all the error margins where falling on that side of the prediction more of then not. For if that prediction was correct the error bars should be equally spread out on both sides of it, not 5 on one, 2 on the other.
@@ebrelus7687 7 sigma male moment
Add to this the recent weirdness with muons like the g-2 and LHCb experiments and it seems that we are getting close to cracking something in the standard model.
Should have been cracked a long time ago. So many holes in it might as well be swiss. Check out the Electric Universe model and the Thuderbolts project
Damn this shoulda been my science fair project! To late awez :(
Try the Doomsday Device, never fails, mwahahaha!
@@LuisAldamiz Haha,, only if it works!
Thanks for not dumbing down the explanation of this data. I've watched many videos on this subject in the past few months and this video (a least for me) hit a good balance of depth.
I assume the superscripts at 5:19 are tensors? You need to do another vid on tensors since it would make the recurring math much easier to follow 👍
Particle physicist here: IMHO, a fabulous presentation Arvin. Look forward to seeing more of these videos - don't mean to troll, but one of the most accurate and thoughtful accounts out there, and I see that the lay public is appreciating it. Go Arvin!
The problems and suffering of millions of people are increasing daily due to governments and companies’ reliance on mass transport planes because they are large planes and depend on human leadership for the plane
Therefore, aircraft manufacturers, technicians and engineers must design small, self-flying aircraft in order to transport travelers directly from their homes to the homes of their mistresses in faraway countries.
And here are these problems and suffering due to aircraft that depend on human leadership
1/The first problem is that the majority of young people cannot travel because of the large financial costs due to the costs of travel procedures such as taxis in order to complete travel procedures such as passports, booking airline tickets and air transportation costs
2/The second problem is the long distances, exhaustion, fatigue, transportation crisis, and the search for taxis in order to complete travel procedures. Sometimes taxi drivers refuse to deliver passengers to the required areas.
3/The third problem is the lack of air transportation services for travelers from their homes to the homes of their mistresses. Therefore, young men and women suffer from psychological problems, anxiety, depression and pain after distances because of these three problems.
Therefore, we suggest that engineers design self-flying planes that contain artificial intelligence technology, imaging techniques, and temporary storage of personal card information for travelers in order to send passenger information over the air to aircraft control agencies In government centers and institutions for monitoring, and This is in order to remove the problems of travel procedures for travelers
(and also ask you to send these problems, suffering and suggestions to technicians, engineers and officials in mechanical and technical engineering departments in institutes and universities)
I appreciate that. Glad you enjoyed it!
Dear Professor ... just one question: is the matter (or mass) that we perceive "only" a particular form of energy? I think so.
I have an old engineering degree and in my day physics textbooks were prehistoric compared to today.
But if the universe was born from a very hot and highly concentrated point of energy and only with the subsequent cooling and inflation did matter "appear", if we look closely,
the mass that composes us and what we touch and see would be "only" a transient phase of energy transformations.
So "everything" is energy and studying the fundamental particles is like trying to understand a building by studying it starting from the upper floors
without studying the foundations.
Unfortunately, those foundations are not reachable by us since they are at Planck's size, which is about 20 orders of magnitude smaller than an electron.
Perhaps the "theory of everything" should be based solely on the study of the fundamental energies that at Planck's level determine the "fabric" of space.
Perhaps we need to start over and overcome many anthropocentric conceptions that limit us.
Maybe we need to invent a new math.
If you can respond to my crazy thoughts, I will be truly grateful.
With infinite respect.
I think your thoughts are valid. Mass is ultimately a form of energy, mostly binding energy in the nucleus of atoms.
@@ArvinAsh Thanks for the reply. You are really kind as well as capable of making very interesting videos that stimulate the fearful minds of us mere mortals. The fact that our baryon matter is only a particular and transient form of energy is probably the simplest explanation of why there is only less than 5% of the total in the universe. The day that we humans will be able to deeply understand why and what happens to the Planck dimension length, we will finally be able to compose the famous equation of everything. Maybe I cross over into science fiction, but that day it will certainly be possible to manipulate reality and therefore to "create" matter at will. That day man will be god and will perhaps be able to create other universes where intelligent beings will grow up who will perhaps pray to a divinity (us) that they will never be able to see. I know it's a dream .... but dreaming is wonderful. Dreaming is a form of energy that emanates from the brain and is the greatest magic in the entire universe. No equation can ever explain the magic of dreams. You too professor make us dream with your videos and for this I thank you. With esteem and gratitude ...from Rome-Italy.
Arvin Ash : Also referred to as “confined “ energy.
Spot on. Everything in the Universe is electrical in nature and mass is not even a valid description of it. Check out the Electric Universe model and you will find what you are looking for
@@breakingthewall2112 OK. But not "electric universe" but "universal and primordial energy". Electricity is something else ... it assumes the passage of electrons and electrons have mass so they are NOT primordial and CANNOT power the fabric of space to Planck's dimension. Strings (if they really exist) are about 20 orders of magnitude smaller than an electron ... they are totally different concepts.
Make a video on how loop quantum gravity rejects the concept of time in the theory . btw love your Videos simple but not easy. 👍🏻
I have often thought that our inability to explain a lot of things could possibly be due to an incomplete picture. If we are not yet able to detect everything involved, that would go along with your third option "unknown physics". As for the first option the "math is wrong" it wouldn't be the first time we have had equations that accurately predict what we observe but were eventually shown to be wrong and perhaps as we are able to peek deeper we will tweak the math a little more.
Too much math is the problem and forgetting to use scientific analysis not mathematical acrobatics to make the theory work
as i am not the most knowledgeable on quantum physics this video leaves me with some questions, for example is there a mathematical way to determine the amount of particles possible? are there known instable mass numbers for the smaller particles? how do we even know for sure that these smaller particles can't decay into even tinier particles? or what if these smaller particles are all the same particle but with a different value to it? and if these particles can interact through fields, how would it even be particles? wouldn't it be more like a web of matter or something? also in the video you used an animation of different fields when talking about fields interacting to create particle mass (not sure if i got that right). does this mean there are more kind of fields? how can we even find out how many there are?
thanks
Hi Arvin hope you can see this comment. Wouldn’t you agree that will be interesting to explore the possibilities of what we can do if we ever find out something (a particle) capable of traveling faster than light. -Would it be possible to see into our own past?
-Would it be possible to see what’s inside of a black hole?
It will be amazing to hypothesize about this and pick your brain on this matter.
Regards and thanks for all the great videos and topics you’ve covered.
hmm...might make for an interesting video.
Heartfelt thanks to you scientists and researchers who allow all mankind to grow.
- In a world where there is so much darkness, you are truly the brightest lights.
This is an unhealthy glorification of scientists and an unnecessarily dramatic view on the world.
@@Gunth0r The world is already very unhealthy thanks to ignorant and corrupt politicians as well as uncontrolled dictators. If everything were decided by scientists who truly love Earth conservation, things would be 100 times better.
@@marcellorossini5490 no, the philosopher-kings! All power to the philosopher-kings!
@@Gunth0r Philosophers are just great thinkers. Scientists KNOW reality. The former would be all day arguing and even arguing and would hardly make important decisions. The seconds after a few debates would be able to make decisions because math is NOT an opinion. Politicians are conditioned by self-interest and for the most part they are lawyers so they are used to lying. I remain of the opinion that scientists (only those who really have at heart the nature and the salvation of the planet and therefore "our" salvation) would be the best rulers. :-)
@@marcellorossini5490 A political class of scientists would give us a society with too great a focus on scientific advancement. A lot of people are already struggling because technologies are developed at such a pace that businesses and regular people have no way to stay knowledgeable or ride the technological wave and be able to compete in the workforce or even as a consumer. You also make the claim that scientists are less corruptible. Show me the research?
Additionally, you assume that a greater focus on nature and the "preservation of the planet" would lead to less societal problems. There's no basis for that claim. In fact, many solutions so far have only created new problems.
I believe in a governing body that is diverse, comprised of all walks of life. Not an elite lobbyist cabal in cahoots with the banksters. Not a "superior" class of scientists or philosopher-kings. Just enough different people who balance each other out and complement each other.
Again, putting any group of people on a pedestal, romanticizing them like you do "light in a sea of darkness", is immature, offensive to everyone else who's making this world a better place by other means and ultimately shows that you're no scientist yourself, because there's absolutely no basis for the claims you make.
Hey Arvind Plz make a video on Concept of Hotspot and Wifi ‼️‼️
Hopefully it'll end up as just one correction of many, as we slowly make narrower the range of predictions for every single particle...
Is it possible that the same unknown physics (like new particles) explains both this discrepancy and the moun G-2 one?
of course it is
3 theres an sub atomic current as that current changes in its oslatetion
It effects things on the atomic an subatomic level
Think of it as interdemental osmosis but the membrane is a demental barer and the pressure on the sub atomic level side is created a back flow but in the context of the magnetic field strength reajusting as the source of the increase of the mas
I'm not sure exactly how the standard model is formulated, but one good theory after much consideration would be a single universal particle of motion that, when built upon itself, creates the many variations of motion we observe in the same way that numbers are modeled.
I think that's it too. Or something along those lines. All bosons are probably just some momentum and not actual particles, so the "mass" is probably going to vary. sometimes.
@@User53123 Particle simply means a fundamental unit or smallest part, so they can still be called particles. A particle of pure motion would have the basic perfections of oneness, uniqueness, and constancy, yet as finite creatures, falling short of the ideal of these. Oneness in that everything wants to be one, hence gravity and basic attraction. Uniqueness in that each particle is distinct, so this contradicts oneness to create repulsion. Constancy in that every particle wants to remain in its current state of being, hence Newton's Laws. In other words, this fundamental particle seeks to be, so to speak, the perfections of God, continuously in each moment of its being.
Well, my argument is sort of with terminology then. If we are going to name particles, we shouldn't be naming momentum. It is misleading. Particles that are confined in a magnetic sphere are obviously real particles but we don't name the momentum energy created by a baseball hitting a wall, and it doesn't make sense to name other momentum either. Anyway that's how I feel about it.
@@User53123 Fair enough.
Perhaps all of those "insignificant" values you mentioned may have an impact on the totality of the end resulting value? As you well know...changing the initial value for a nonlinear differential equation can produce a significant difference in resulting values...why would it be any different for the ongoing summation of these insignificant values? As usual... awesome videos... thanks for all of your efforts.
it could be that but the thing is scientists must have looked into this possibility as well, so maybe the summed final value of those insignificant values is also too insignificant.
@@kernal2077 Good point... physicists are usually pretty picky about things like that. They usually never forget to "carry the two"...lol.
@@robertstapleton6919 haha ikr XD
New physics is always exciting. A working fusion reactor would be exciting too.
The sun has entered the chat.
@@pbp6741 - Underrated reply.
That burn has a temperature higher than planck's.
Thanks 😊
Is there always a pair of the bossoms ?
Dear Arvin ji,
Do you think present day theories are correct? Are you really convinced with Higgs field ? Personally what do you think?
Yes, because they make accurate predictions, which can be verified.
@@ArvinAsh I strongly disagree with interpretations. Can we have a discussion?
Let’s see - the results from DO I, L3, OPAl, and ALEPH didn’t agree with the SM predictions either, even with error bars. Seems like this “anomaly” has been staring at the Standard Model for decades, but particle physicists can’t admit when they’re wrong. The answer must be the elusive “super symmetry.” 🙄
coming up right now!
Thanks Arvin I appreciate you trying to make this understandable to pee brains like me. I think I'll stick to construction lol. I'll keep listening maybe I can pick up on some things here and there.
This was a tough one buddy. Future videos should be easier to understand. Thanks for watching!
I smell a Nobel prize if the measurement is confirmed by another team.
...and yet we can't resolve wave-particle duality to a level that answers why we (currently) see the duality, and what is actually going on.
Many of these equations rely on measuring the particle, but not its waveform counterpart: fundamentally a flaw regardless of the underlying processes that cause the duality.
Do you think this could have anything to do with the theoretical 5th force?
2:34 look more closely at the standard model and in particular the electroweak theory, which is a key component of this model. The electroweak theory is essential for several reasons: First, it's a theory that unites two fundamental forces, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism. 2:46 ... 7:00 So, what does this mean? There are three possible explanations: ... 9:10 This could be the most exciting solution. ... 2:34 look more closely at the standard model and in particular the electroweak theory, which is a key component of this model. The electroweak theory is essential for several reasons: First, it's a theory that unites two fundamental forces, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism. 2:46 ... 7:00 So, what does this mean? There are three possible explanations: ... 9:10 This could be the most exciting solution. ... [BTS pp says] Accordingly, in the beginning there were two big-bangs (Totally Three if considered that since Singularity The Primordial), corresponding with two accelerating expansions of universe the whole, we have the distribution of God's stuff, 60% (Dark Energy) vs 40% (Dirac Sea), you particle physicists may adjust or fine-tuning your Standard Model in your will. Shalom!
It will be a long time before we even get close to these errors.
This is sick
I just signed into Wondrium and watched a few of Professor Sean Carroll's lectures on the Higgs Boson before watching this. What a coincidence the sponsor is.
The outcome will be exciting no matter what it is. Of course, new physics would be awesome.
Watching this at 1.42am and yes, I can confirm my brain is broken.
I think new type of particles formed and its mass interacting with w bosson mass bcz after the upgrade LHC can carry experiments with more energy and power than before so that means chances of new heavier particles increased
Can the Higgs boson or quark vary the mass of W boson? By how much?
I also faced the deviation in weinberg angle.... where i had to manually adjust it................one thing i can confirm that the data is accurate...... cause i saw the same thing in calculation..... same problem was related to the meuon during the calculation of magnetic moment. These two problems are connected and I can say what is causing it. But dont know how I would say or who would listen to it.
Can someone explain why the boson is 80x more massive than a proton yet it comes out of a proton? I realize when they use the term mass, it's units is in energy, I am just confused with this detail, thx
The mass of the W boson also has a probability. In Beta decay a W boson with a very small mass is ejected. This is why it takes a relatively long time for a neutron to decay.
I wondered how they calculate the uncertainty range. If it is higher than the +- 9, but say +-15 - then the finding is inside 5 Sigma.
It doesn't matter whether Atlas experiment had bigger error bars than CDF 2... The important part is they don't overlap by large margin. So, some result is fluked or is testing different stuff regardless of the SM.
If you order a stick, you can't be measuring same thing as your pal and say I think it's 6 feet +- 1inch while they say their measured same stick as 5' +- 2". Regardless of how the stick maker specified it.
To me the experiment disagreement is a bigger issue than SM inconsistency because it undermines confidence in the experimental methods.
These fluctuations in the field that we perceive as mass - are these analogous to how we perceive electrons as being "spherical"? Their influence is nearly the same in all directions so we say it's spherical when in reality it isn't the shape of a sphere. Are we calling these partials "bosons" and picturing them as objects when in reality they are fluctuations in a field that have an effect in the macro world and aren't free floating objects at all.
New this trying to wrap my head around new concepts
Can you explain how the "7 sigma" is calculated. Do you use the student t- distribution or table ?
Good afternoon sir. Sir I think the mass of the w boson is affected due to the quantum fluctuations created by the virtual particles in the vacuum of the particle accelerator. Can this happen? Thanking you sir in anticipation. 🙂
I don't think so because virtual particles are generally annihilated too quickly.
@@ArvinAsh Ok sir, so can the W boson absorb the energy created by the annihilation of the virtual particles. Sorry sir for asking this vivid question, hoping for a reply. Thanking you sir in anticipation.
Has anyone ever tried to build up from the Planck length to predict these different measurements?
6:46 ?
What about that value at the top of the list? Its error bars don't come within range, either, right? Which experiment was that?
The physical quantum vacuum must be discrete and at the same time continuous. The physical vacuum must be from chaos, in which the fractals of quantum wave oscillations are scattered. The physical vacuum must be rolled up and at the same time unfolded. For this physical vacuum, it is necessary to build a physical model from a quantum of membranes assembled into a “sphere” like “rose” buds.
Can this mass discrepancy of the W Boson give any insight into the G discrepancy of the Muon from last year?
It is not clear that the two results are related.
Utter amateur here! But would including previously ignored small values in quantum correction get us closer to squaring the circle? It different values for the constants a & b?
I have just one question about those formulas in the first 6 minutes.. Why are there so many corrections?
Because the mass of any one particle is affected by the mass of other particles.